Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in separate recipe to allow bootstrapping

["Luca Bocassi" <luca.boccassi@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 14:27 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 14:22 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > Sent: den 25 mars 2021 10:34
> > > To: Oleksiy Obitotskyi -X (oobitots - GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco)
> > > <oobitots@cisco.com>; Luca Bocassi <luca.boccassi@gmail.com>;
> > > openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > > Cc: bluelightning@bluelightning.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > > <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v11] util-linux: split uuid in separate
> > > recipe to allow bootstrapping
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 09:17 +0000, Oleksiy Obitotskyi -X (oobitots -
> > > GLOBALLOGIC INC at Cisco) wrote:
> > > > Could you look into this warning.
> > > > 
> > > > WARNING: util-linux-2.36.2-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: util-linux-dev
> > > rdepends on util-linux-libuuid-dev, but it isn't a build dependency?
> > > [build-deps]
> > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/61/builds/3226
> > > 
> > > That failure was my fault when testing some fixes.
> > > 
> > > I've sent out a patch which renames util-linux-uuid to util-linux-libuuid
> > > and sorts out the license issue Peter reported.
> > 
> > I don't mind the recipe being renamed and cleaned up, but I would prefer 
> > to see my entire patch for the license parts being either integrated before 
> > this or squashed into it, whichever you prefer. It does not make sense to 
> > use the same LIC_FILES_CHKSUM for util-linux-libuuid as for util-linux, 
> > and setting the other LICENSE variables in util-linux.inc no longer makes 
> > sense as they are only relevant for util-linux.
> 
> I'm torn on that. Code with the other licenses is present, just not used
> in the final output and I personally suspect that having one LIC_FILES_CHKSUM 
> is going to be easier to maintain in the future rather than two separate ones.

FWIW, in Debian the license definitions always cover the _sources_, not
the built binaries. IOW: even if you don't build and distribute a
subtool, the license metadata must cover it. I'd think this would be
even more important for Yocto since you exclusively distribute sources,
not binaries.

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi